Terry Mauro

And I called Hank Paulson, "Hjalmar Schact". As economist Abba Lerner admitted during his 1971 debate at Queens College against Lyndon LaRouche "If the German people had just accepted Schact's policies then Hitler would not have been necessary".

As usual you guys miss the boat.

This is classic. While the financial system is evaporating before our eyes, the "austerity" Governator of California decides to get in on the bail out money.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27006906

LaRouche: There is NO Excuse to Support The Bailout Bill!

Increase DecreaseClick here for the PDF

October 2, 2008 (LPAC) -- Speaking at an international webcast on Oct. 1, American statesman and economist Lyndon LaRouche delivered an emphatic message to Washington, the nation, and the world: “There is no moral excuse for supporting the bailout bill!’’

“If you go with a bailout, you’re going to destroy the United States in short order, through hyperinflation. The bailout is intrinsically hyperinflationary! The only reason that anybody, in their right mind, would even think of supporting this bill, is because they’re scared. And we need a Gideon’s Army, to pull through the reform. And, some of you Biblical scholars, you know what I’m talking about.

“You have to take all the people who are cowards, who will not step up to the plate, as they say, on this issue, and say, ‘Okay: Dear Coward, we’re taking over. We’re leading.’

“Now, the danger here, of course, is that, you’re going to have a French Revolution problem, as I said, inside the United States. You now have--and some of these idiots, and even my friendly friends out there, who say, `Please! Please, be cautious! Let this bill go through, so they won’t shoot us!’ That’s what they’re saying! They’re saying, that behind the Bush Administration, there are people who would actually use U.S. troops to shoot down people who want to oppose this bill! That’s there, right now! That is reality! And that’s what some of these questions are reflecting.

“There are people in high places, including some very high-ranking people, in terms of their background, who agree totally with what I say about this stuff! But they won’t fight! Because they say, `We’ll be shot! We don’t want to go into a death camp.’ Well, if we go into a death camp because we do this, the world will never forgive those who do it! And the world will never forgive those who capitulate to this!

“Anybody who’s smart, is not going to take on the American people in that fashion. You’re not going to shove a dictatorship down the throat of the American people! They’ll kill you....

“The reason you’re getting such peculiar behavior in the House of Representatives, is because the people out there, who are behind the people who voted against this bill--those people out there are ready to kill! Not because they’re killers, but because they see the destruction of everything that life means to them, is threatening them! They’ve seen a lot of it: Step by step, they’ve put up with it, they’ve accepted it, they’ve crawled for it! They say, `We have to get along! We have to get along!’ The time has come when they know that everything is being taken away from them, and that was too much!

“You’re going to find the rage against the White House, and against the Senate, in particular, is going to escalate in ways, during the coming days, of this week and next week--in ways beyond anything most of you believe! I can see it right there: It’s there. It’s coming.

“The mood in the American people, having gone through fake wars--they’ve had their children sent out into fake wars, like Iraq--it was fake war! There was no need to go there. No need to get into that war. Then they got into it, and they made a mess of it, even what they started. No need.

“Look at the suffering of people, who went into service, come back from that war, not only with death, but injuries--but they can’t get help! They’re condemned to horrible conditions! And in every neighborhood in the United States, there’s someone in that category: It radiates.

“Don’t you see, the hatred you’re building up against Washington, in the people of the United States? And this bill, is one bill too many!

“You’re headed for something like a French Revolution, and you’re going to bring it on your own heads, if you’re dumb enough not to fight this bill, and not to oppose it! There is no excuse for supporting this bill! None! There is no moral excuse for supporting this bill.’’

Will the Bush Administration Use the

Military To Enforce the Bailout?

During the course of his Oct. 1 international webcast, American statesman and economist Lyndon LaRouche warned that there is a clear indication that “a desperate Bush Administration, and what it’s tied to internationally, might try to make a military suppression of resistance to their policy.’’

"They might try to use military force, to force through the kind of legislation, the bailout, which is being attempted now,’’ LaRouche said.

There is a “French Revolutionary’’ mood building among the American people against the destruction of their nation through Bush Administration policy, and the bailout of Wall Street speculators in particular, LaRouche said. The people hate this bill.

“And there’s an instinct in this administration, to use military force against the people of the United States to suppress the opposition to this bill.

“This is reality, right now! Not something ‘coming down’: That is already the reality.

“If this bill were to be pushed through, with or without the aid of military force against the American people by American troops--which are now being stationed for this kind of operation--the United States will disappear, in very short order. And civilization would crash, globally.’’

Later, LaRouche was even more blunt: If American troops, ordered by the President, turn on the American people to suppress the opposition to this bill, the United States will cease to exist! This is worse than treason! Any such action, from any part of government, is worse than treason! And anyone who accepts such an order, is a traitor to the United States.’’

A Sept. 30 report in the U.S. Army publication Stars & Stripes underscored LaRouche’s warning. The paper reported that the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team is being given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom inside the United States, beginning Oct. 1. The Team will be under the day-to-day-control of U.S. Army North for 12 months, as an on-call Federal response force for natural or man-made emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.

“They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control,’’ Stars & Stripes reported.

LaRouche had already denounced the creation of NorthCom back in 2002, declaring that it was a “preparation to create a Caesarian military dictatorship’’ over North America.

Russian Railways Chief Yakunin: I Knew About The Crisis, LaRouche Warned Me

Increase DecreaseOctober 3, 2008 (LPAC)-- In today's issue of the leading Russian business daily Kommersant, CEO of Russian Railways (RZhD) Vladimir Yakunin was interviewed under the headline, "Liberal Capitalism Is Coming to an End in Russia." At the outset of his interview, Yakunin stated bluntly that none other than Lyndon LaRouche, the "American alternative economist," had warned him of the onrushing global financial breakdown crisis a long time ago.

Yakunin heads the state-owned railway company, a huge enterprise whose high-speed rail and transcontinental expansion projects are a critical component of Russia's economic development policy. He is a long-time associate of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, as well as being co-founder of the International Public Forum "Dialogue of Civilizations." The Kommersant interview comes as Russian Railways deals with the impact of the global crash on its own operations. In mid-September, the company abruptly suspended a planned road show for floating a $7 billion Eurobond flotation, when it became clear there would be no takers in the frozen international credit markets.

Kommersant asked Yakunin, "When did you realize that there would be a financial crisis?"

Yakunin: "A year and a half ago. I am not making this up. I remember my first conversation with the American alternative economist, Professor LaRouche (Lyndon LaRouche --Kommersant). He is someone who uses quite powerful algorithms for evaluating the state of the economy and its prospects. And he said to me, "Vladimir, I can tell you with certainty, that the economic crisis is already taking place." He emphasized that the basis of the crisis is the transformation of the economy and, above all, finance, into a virtual economy and virtual finances. Out of the entire monetary circulation taking place in the world today, in his view, only about 15% of the paper money is backed by real value - industrial production, raw materials, etc. It seems to me that right now we are witnessing the accuracy of this formula. This summer, I have been discussing the topic of the crisis both with other economists, and with my friends in the government, so the crisis itself was not unexpected. But I am not a professional financier. If the crisis was visible and obvious to me, it should have been visible and obvious to the people who are running financial policy."

Yakunin told Kommersant that RZhD right now has sufficient liquidity for operations, but no sources of credit for investment, meaning that its investment plans may be slashed by 10-15% over the next two years. Asked about the current Russian government infusion of funds to support the banking sector and financial markets, Yakunin said that "assistance should have a specific address." He expressed support for a two-tier approach, whereby "if it's a speculating institution, let them cover their losses, but if it's a serious bank, which supports a large number of enterprises, maybe entire sectors of industry, probably they should be the first ones to receive government support."

Yakunin said that Francis Fukuyama's famous "end of history," was really the "end of neoliberal theory." Asked where things should go next, he replied, "Towards the formation of a new economic paradigm. Let's begin with the entire world. I mean realty the whole world, and build and implement a new economic theory. I hope that we'll finally get it, that you cannot live on financial surrogates, that the whole world cannot live by a single currency that isn't backed up by anything, called the dollar." He noted President Dmitri Medvedev's interest in a shift to the use of national currencies in trade, noting that this is under discussion with Arab countries.

In a concluding exchange, Yakunin defended his commitment to proceed with acquisition of a 5% stake in Germany's rail company, Deutsche Bahn. The reason for this, he said, is that "We consider the linkage of the European and Russian railroads to be of strategic importance from the standpoint of organizing a container bridge between the Pacific region and Europe." In addition, Yakunin said that the best thing the state could do, under current circumstances, is to invest in infrastructure: "At the risk of sounding paradoxical, I believe that financial investment in large, promising projects, including infrastructure projects, which create real value and will provide something for business to do, can be a stabilizing factor."

LaRouche Endorses Call To Establish New ‘Pecora Commission’; Demands Paulson’s Ouster

Increase DecreaseLaRouche Endorses Call To Establish New ‘Pecora Commission’; Demands Paulson’s Ouster

SEPT. 28, 2008 (LPAC)--Lyndon LaRouche today heartily endorsed House Resolution 1452, introduced on Sept. 17, 2008, by Representatives Marci Kaptur (D-Oh.) and Scott Garrett (R-NJ), “Establishing the Select Committee on Financial Bailouts.” The legislation, which LaRouche dubbed a new “Pecora Commission,” would create a Select Committee on Financial Bailouts, to investigate the recent actions of Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and others, in engineering the taxpayers bailouts and bank takeovers of Bear Stearns, the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Merrill Lynch, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, American International Group, Lehman Brothers and others. The bill would empower the Select Committee to “investigate the role that political influence may have had on the oversight of the financial markets by both the Congress and the Federal regulatory agencies,” and would require the Select Committee to submit a report to the House of Representatives, “no later than Dec. 31, 2008.”

LaRouche applauded the proposal as a “new Pecora Commission,” referring to high-profile hearings by the Senate Banking Committee between 1932-1933, which particularly targeted JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs, as leading Wall Street swindlers. The Committee was chaired by Sen. Duncan Fletcher (D-Fl.), but the lead prosecutor of the Wall Street scoundrels on the Committee was chief counsel Ferdinand Pecora. The hearings set the stage for the June 16, 1933 passage of the Glass-Steagall Act.

LaRouche observed, “Goldman Sachs escaped the last time there was a serious probe of Wall Street criminality. Let's make sure it doesn't happen again.” LaRouche emphasized, “It is time to just go back to FDR. Wall Street just needs to be told to forget their lunatic schemes. We Americans don't want to hear from Wall Street anymore.”

LaRouche zeroed in on Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. “This man, along with others of the same stripes, created the greatest mass of toxic waste in history. And now, the Bush Administration and the Congress expects the American people to turn to Paulson again, to advise us how to get out of this mess? Don't you think a better advisor than Paulson is needed?” LaRouche declared: “It's time for him to go. He has been a total failure, a real screw-up artist, and we have had enough of this already. He mastered all the techniques that got us into this, the greatest financial collapse since the 14th century. Enough is enough.”

Obama-bush Try To Ram Through Criminal Paulson Bailout To Preempt

Popular Opposition

Sept. 25 (LPAC)--The Soros-run Obama team of Felix Rohatyn

favorites, Senator Christopher Dodd and his sidekick BarneyFrank,

aware of the massive opposition to the Paulson bailout, are

attempting to ram through the biggest swindle in history in

collusion with the Bush Administration before that opposition can

fully express itself. Thus, immediately after George W. Bush's

national address last night, both Dodd and Frank announced that

an agreement had already been reached in principle.

This was, however, not the case. On Wednesday night, a

spokesman for Republican House leader Boehner said in an e-mail

that there "will not be a final deal as a result" of the meeting

which was scheduled for Thursday morning at 10 a.m. of the

members of Frank's Financial Services Committee and those of

their Senate counterparts in Dodd's Senate Banking Committee. As

he entered the meeting, Rep. Spencer Bachus, the top Republican

on the Financial Services commmittee, said lawmakers were not

close to a deal.

Later in the day, the Democratic leadership insisted that a

deal had been struck. However, even Frank was forced to admit

that he did not know how many House Republicans would vote for

it.

There were also signs that the conservative-leaning House

Republican Caucus was not on board. Both of Congress's Republican

leaders, Rep. John Boehner and Sen. Mitch McConnell, issued

statements saying there was not yet an agreement.

Noticeably absent at the Thursday morning meeting was Sen.

Richard Shelby of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Senate

Banking Committee, who has said he opposes the idea of bailing

out Wall Street. He was replaced in negotiations with Dodd and

Frank by Senator Bennett, the number two GOP senator on the

Banking Committee.

During the 10 a.m. meeting, Barack Obama was reportedly on

the phone with Dodd, directly participating in the negotiations

in support of the Dodd-Frank-Paulson swindle.

After the White House meeting between Bush, Obama and McCain

in the afternoon, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher

Dodd said that an alternative Republican plan was being floated

that threatened to set back the negotiations.

Also, Senator Shelby, who did not attend the Dodd-Frank

committee negotiations, was reportedly citing a letter from more

than 150 U.S. economists, including three Nobel Prize winners,

which urges Congress to hold off from passing the plan until it

can be studied more closely.

Thanks, Terry.

What is the source of this article?

Christopher Dodd got a sweetheart house mortgage by simply calling Countrywide's President, whom he had never met.

I am pretty sure that Dodd was also the largest recipient of campaing contributions from Fanny, from Freddie and from Washington Mutual.

Barney Frank stated just a few years ago that Fannie and Freddie were financially sound.

Check out the following youtube link:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/...ffed.html#links

And didn't Soros make part of his enormous fortune by shorting the US dollar in foreign currency exchange trading?

Who wants his advice?

And now Warren Buffett warns us of cataclysmic econmic consequences if the bailout is not passed, but he just bought $5 Billion in Goldman Sachs stock last week, so it's not exactly like he doesn't have a hefty stake in the success of financial institutions.

So, the real questions are:

1. Should the government act, as proposed, in a largely socialist manner?

2. Will the proposed bailout even work?

3. What will happen if the government does nothing (i.e. will the sky fall)?

4. How much of the loans are recoverable (I suspect that the loans are not all toxic)?

5. Whom can we trust for advice (I heard on Mark Levin last night that over 100 economics profs from prestigious universities all over the country have written letters to Congress telling them that the bailout was a terrible idea)?

6. What are the collateral consequences of a bailout (on the US economy for many years, on the dollar, etc.)?

This whole mess is kind of like reality television.

LPAC=LaRouche Political Action Committee

Thanks for the youtube. Bush Administration fired OFHEO Director Armando Falcon,after he issued this warning.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3010ofheo_rpt.html

Official Axed, Exposed Threat

Of U.S. Housing Bubble Crash

by Richard Freeman

A new government report showing the underlying weakness of the U.S. housing market and financial system, and an immediate demand by Wall Street that the head of the reporting agency be fired, has revealed a bruising and fight in Washington over a critical subject: the increasing rate of the financial disintegration, and what is to be done about it. The fight also shows the desperation of the Wall Street-City of London financier oligarchy, and the thuggery to which it will resort, to silence criticism and defend its unsalvageable, bankrupt financial system.

Further

An 'Enterprise' Debt Default

The OFHEO report examines the points of vulnerability between the interrelated Fannie and Freddie on the one side, and the U.S. and world's banks and financial institutions, on the other. The OFHEO asks a very direct question: If, because of a severe financial problem, Fannie and/or Freddie were to default on their debt, what effect would radiate out to the U.S. and world financial system? This is far from an academic issue. Fannie and Freddie have a unique status; they are known as government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs): They were originally chartered by the U.S. government, but over stages, they have become totally private corporations. It is believed that Fannie and Freddie are the two most highly indebted private corporations in the world. According to the latest available data, as of late 2002, Fannie and Freddie had, respectively, $851.0 billion and $700 billion in outstanding debt, almost all of it in the form of bonds—that is, each institution has debt greater than that of Brazil

The entire financial system is bankrupt. They should put the system into bankruptcy protection. No the bail out will not work. And they're trying to scare people into going along with the bailout. But how do you bail out $200-$400 trillion in derivatives?

Obama-bush Try To Ram Through Criminal Paulson Bailout To Preempt

Popular Opposition

Sept. 25 (LPAC)--The Soros-run Obama team of Felix Rohatyn

favorites, Senator Christopher Dodd and his sidekick BarneyFrank,

aware of the massive opposition to the Paulson bailout, are

attempting to ram through the biggest swindle in history in

collusion with the Bush Administration before that opposition can

fully express itself. Thus, immediately after George W. Bush's

national address last night, both Dodd and Frank announced that

an agreement had already been reached in principle.

This was, however, not the case. On Wednesday night, a

spokesman for Republican House leader Boehner said in an e-mail

that there "will not be a final deal as a result" of the meeting

which was scheduled for Thursday morning at 10 a.m. of the

members of Frank's Financial Services Committee and those of

their Senate counterparts in Dodd's Senate Banking Committee. As

he entered the meeting, Rep. Spencer Bachus, the top Republican

on the Financial Services commmittee, said lawmakers were not

close to a deal.

Later in the day, the Democratic leadership insisted that a

deal had been struck. However, even Frank was forced to admit

that he did not know how many House Republicans would vote for

it.

There were also signs that the conservative-leaning House

Republican Caucus was not on board. Both of Congress's Republican

leaders, Rep. John Boehner and Sen. Mitch McConnell, issued

statements saying there was not yet an agreement.

Noticeably absent at the Thursday morning meeting was Sen.

Richard Shelby of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Senate

Banking Committee, who has said he opposes the idea of bailing

out Wall Street. He was replaced in negotiations with Dodd and

Frank by Senator Bennett, the number two GOP senator on the

Banking Committee.

During the 10 a.m. meeting, Barack Obama was reportedly on

the phone with Dodd, directly participating in the negotiations

in support of the Dodd-Frank-Paulson swindle.

After the White House meeting between Bush, Obama and McCain

in the afternoon, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher

Dodd said that an alternative Republican plan was being floated

that threatened to set back the negotiations.

Also, Senator Shelby, who did not attend the Dodd-Frank

committee negotiations, was reportedly citing a letter from more

than 150 U.S. economists, including three Nobel Prize winners,

which urges Congress to hold off from passing the plan until it

can be studied more closely.

I agree that the bailout will further tank the dollar.

But I hope that we don't see the second coming of FDR.

The rest of the country doesn't need to subsidize a sector of the economy whose profligate spending drove the sector into the ground.

If we are all going to suffer, let's let the financial sector suffer the most.

FDR may be one of the most misunderstood Presidents. Who do you think broke up the House of Morgan and introduced banking regulation designed to prevent the very kinds of ponzi schemes now imploding? All the FDR regulations were overturned by Wall Street the past 15 years.

FDR never subsidized the bankers, he was their worst nightmare.

Y2000- Bankers plan for financial crash-CFR

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2000/2729_cfr.html

Hank Greenberg of AIG attended this weekend of "game theory". It did not do him much good in the final analysis as his company was taken over.

This was further confirmed by the last session of the conference, at which the featured speaker was Ray Kurzweil, one of the principal proponents of "virtual reality" and author of The Age of Spiritual Machines, When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence. Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, head of the giant American International Group (AIG) insurance firm and vice chairman of the CFR, introduced Kurzweil as "the Thomas Edison of the computer age."

I agree that the bailout will further tank the dollar.

But I hope that we don't see the second coming of FDR.

The rest of the country doesn't need to subsidize a sector of the economy whose profligate spending drove the sector into the ground.

If we are all going to suffer, let's let the financial sector suffer the most.

FDR may be one of the most misunderstood Presidents. Who do you think broke up the House of Morgan and introduced banking regulation designed to prevent the very kinds of ponzi schemes now imploding? All the FDR regulations were overturned by Wall Street the past 15 years.

FDR never subsidized the bankers, he was their worst nightmare.

It looks like there might be trouble with getting the bailout package through the Congress:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/3073543...al-markets.html

The wording is too loose and the election is only about 40 days off. The consequence of stalling is a lockdown of the finanacial system as credit evaporates. The consequence of its passage will mean homeowners (and the rest of the population) take the pain of the asset writedowns and economic readjustment. Not very palatable either way.

It's times like these, surely a national emergency, that Americans must regret electing a buffoon as President.

Meanwhile, this analyst doesn't like the Greenback's chances, claiming it is backed by bananas:

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id=70069...ctionid=3510302

Finally, it seems that the economic crisis has forced the US to suspend its pernicious foreign policy agenda, at least for now. The members of the European US alliance have now cancelled talks aimed at increasing sanctions on Iran:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=70404...ionid=351020101

Could be a sign of things to come.

Speaking of a "sign of things to come", they're parading idiot son GW Bush out tonight to address the nation about the financial crash. We're not likely to witness the second coming of FDR.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26871338

Peter DeFazio on the bailout package. Good stuff

This is getting really dumb. You claimed LBJ cut "JFK's NASA program" but the fact is NASA's budget was higher for every year of LBJ's presidency than it was in any year of JFK's. NASA budget didn't fall back to 1963 levels till 1971. They had 2x (or more) more in 1965, 66 and 67 than they did in 1963 You changed your claim to say the growth of it's budget reversed when LBJ was president. That is true but there is no basis for your assumption it would have continued to grow or leveled off at a level above what it did had JFK remained in office. The former is extremely unlikely it budget doubled every year or two. By the late 60's they were well on there way to accomplishing there goal of landing in the moon before 1970.

This last post of yours is beyond belief. Clearly the thinking you display demonstrates why you dont understand the current financial /economic collapse. By limiting your argument to which year had a higher budget, 1963 versus 1964 to 1967 you come up with the wrong answer. Think this through Aunt Bertie, if they cut the budget it is not simply an

accounting issue. The declining rate of investment is indicative of the shut down of the space program, which was the point of my first comment regarding LBJ. If you cut out and eliminate 80,000 jobs from NASA for example, if you cut out Research and Development, then there goes new and improved designs, less demand for steel, less demand for nuclear energy, plus all of the infrastrucure required for space exploration. Then the budget for NASA will "REFLECT" that shutdown. That's the issue not whether 1967 NASA budget was greater than 1963.

That's what you're seeing when you see the sudden reversal in investment You're seeing the shutdown of JFK's space program. Who cares if 1967's budget was greater in terms of total dollars than 1963? The point to be made and understood is that a reversal in policy is underway and as a result they are dismantling the space program. Which is then "reflected" in the declining rate of investment i.e. budget. And that was my point.

Using your earlier argument regarding the budget for the space program you could make the case that todays financial collapse isnt really happening. After all the Dow is still higher than it was in 1997! What you should do Len is post a graph of the growth of the Dow Jones, then find each year end value from say 1994 to the present. You can show us all how the system isnt in a state of collapse because todays close at 10,883 is actually higher than the closing value on September 24, 1997! See you can prove that cant you? Especially using "bizzaro" logic.

You're nuttier than a fruit cake.

PS- Why would JFK assume the political leadership for the space program if all he intended to do was send a man to the moon and return him to earth? Why would he invest all those resources? He never intended to shut down the space program. What he intended was to create a science driver program for the exploration of space, which in turn would improve the quality of life for every human being on this planet for years and years to come. Had he not been assassinated we would have had a manned Mars mission sometime during the 1980's. And the spin offs into the economy froma program like this would have guaranteed us all a much higher standard of living.

Your method of thinking is atrocious. That's why you are always wrong. It's your method. It's the same mental disease Bertrand Russell spent his life spreading through out the culture. In fact there isnt much difference between Bertrand Russell and satanic punker GG Allin. They are both born of the same mother.

He [LBJ] also moved to make major budget cuts to JFK's NASA program.

NASA was actually founded during the Eisenhower Administration. I doubt Johnson push to cut it budget funding went up when he was president. Though it peaked in 1966 it was still a lot higher in 1968 than it was 1963 if the information linked below is correct. In anycase it is highly unlikely the US would have made it to the moon 1969 if funding had not be raised above 1963 levels

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_budget#A...et.2C_1958-2008

NASA funding (in constant 1996 dollars) page 18. You can see that funding for space travel "spikes" upward under John F. Kennedy, then makes an equally downward spike after the assassination, under LBJ, Nixon et.al It has remained flat ever since.

http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/~leuliett/presen...s/asen_2004.pdf

James Webb who was Director from 1961-1968 held a September 1968 press conference where he critized congressional budget cuts to NASA

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jewebb.htm

Terry – Thanks for providing documentary evidence that the data from Wikipedia is correct and not only did NASA’s budget spike under LBJ but spending was higher during every year of his presidency than during any other year.

You see you need to get your glasses checked and/or improve your chart reading skills, each circle and square on the chart represent a different year. Since you got confused I annotated it for you.

Despite having a highly regressive foreign policy, LBJ’s domestic policy was probably the most progressive of any president.

As for NASA budget cuts that Webb complained about he seems to have blamed congress and they brought spending back to where it was in 1964.

But once again thanks for your help; I couldn’t have proved you wrong without it.

Kennedy had gone before congress in 1962 asking for millions of dollars to develop nuclear powered rocket boosters. You did not require nuclear powered boosters to get to the moon. What JFK was planning was travel to Mars using the moon as a launch site.

I imagine you can provide a citation for that? Considering the various mishaps with space travel perhaps this was not a very good idea. A nuclear powered booster exploding in the atmosphere would make Chernobyl look like a leaky microwave over.

This change in the outlook toward science and technology is one of the more glaring clues in the never ending game of "who killed JFK". They reversed JFK's space program and replaced it with the post industrial society complete with "sex, rock, drugs" counter culture. Had Kennedy not been murdered there is no question that the world would be a much different place today.

But there is no doubt that JFK's killers saw his commitment to science and technology a major threat.

Except that NASA funding under LBJ and Nixon was higher than under JFK

You're desperate. Any fool (almost) can clearly see the change in policy from Kennedy to the LBJ. Like the policy of Vietnam and the post industrial society that replaced John Kennedy. Then you make a meaningless distinction between Congress and LBJ. The point is Dear Auntie Betrie, the USA was subjected to a "post industrial" policy after the assassination of JFK. Shutting down the space program was a major part of this policy. The Great Society was a hoax and the money that should have been directed to Kennedy's science driver program, which would have continued to create vast rates of real wealth was shut down. And it was shut down "fast" under LBJ's Presidency. It doesnt matter if the momentum under JFK carried funding into 1966, what matters is the clear change in direction. You see from the graph the empirical evidence of this change in policy. From a pro growth capital intensive science vectored policy of JFK to the entropic, post industrial, zero growth policies first introduced under LBJ and his Great Society Hoax.

You can call it momentum if you wish in a desprate move not tom admit error, spending continued to climb under LBJ it started to fall at the end of his administration but remain higher under him that it was when JFK was President. They managed to achieve JFK stated goal of landing a man on the moom before 1970. If you can turn up evidence of any goals that Kennedy set that weren't met don't be shy about telling us. But the truth is you simply made a mistake you initially thought spending peaked in 1963 and now that you've been shown to be wrong are making up excuses.

Actually Aunt Bertie my first post made mention of LBJ's Great Society and his cuts to JFK's space program. I never stated anything about the "budget" for NASA peaking in 1963 or 1964 or 1965.

How JFK mobilized a recovery for the US economy. Marsha Freeman

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/economy/p...K_recovery.html

He [LBJ] also moved to make major budget cuts to JFK's NASA program.

NASA was actually founded during the Eisenhower Administration. I doubt Johnson push to cut it budget funding went up when he was president. Though it peaked in 1966 it was still a lot higher in 1968 than it was 1963 if the information linked below is correct. In anycase it is highly unlikely the US would have made it to the moon 1969 if funding had not be raised above 1963 levels

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_budget#A...et.2C_1958-2008

NASA funding (in constant 1996 dollars) page 18. You can see that funding for space travel "spikes" upward under John F. Kennedy, then makes an equally downward spike after the assassination, under LBJ, Nixon et.al It has remained flat ever since.

http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/~leuliett/presen...s/asen_2004.pdf

James Webb who was Director from 1961-1968 held a September 1968 press conference where he critized congressional budget cuts to NASA

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jewebb.htm

Terry – Thanks for providing documentary evidence that the data from Wikipedia is correct and not only did NASA’s budget spike under LBJ but spending was higher during every year of his presidency than during any other year.

You see you need to get your glasses checked and/or improve your chart reading skills, each circle and square on the chart represent a different year. Since you got confused I annotated it for you.

Despite having a highly regressive foreign policy, LBJ’s domestic policy was probably the most progressive of any president.

As for NASA budget cuts that Webb complained about he seems to have blamed congress and they brought spending back to where it was in 1964.

But once again thanks for your help; I couldn’t have proved you wrong without it.

Kennedy had gone before congress in 1962 asking for millions of dollars to develop nuclear powered rocket boosters. You did not require nuclear powered boosters to get to the moon. What JFK was planning was travel to Mars using the moon as a launch site.

I imagine you can provide a citation for that? Considering the various mishaps with space travel perhaps this was not a very good idea. A nuclear powered booster exploding in the atmosphere would make Chernobyl look like a leaky microwave over.

This change in the outlook toward science and technology is one of the more glaring clues in the never ending game of "who killed JFK". They reversed JFK's space program and replaced it with the post industrial society complete with "sex, rock, drugs" counter culture. Had Kennedy not been murdered there is no question that the world would be a much different place today.

But there is no doubt that JFK's killers saw his commitment to science and technology a major threat.

Except that NASA funding under LBJ and Nixon was higher than under JFK

You're desperate. Any fool (almost) can clearly see the change in policy from Kennedy to the LBJ. Like the policy of Vietnam and the post industrial society that replaced John Kennedy. Then you make a meaningless distinction between Congress and LBJ. The point is Dear Auntie Betrie, the USA was subjected to a "post industrial" policy after the assassination of JFK. Shutting down the space program was a major part of this policy. The Great Society was a hoax and the money that should have been directed to Kennedy's science driver program, which would have continued to create vast rates of real wealth was shut down. And it was shut down "fast" under LBJ's Presidency. It doesnt matter if the momentum under JFK carried funding into 1966, what matters is the clear change in direction. You see from the graph the empirical evidence of this change in policy. From a pro growth capital intensive science vectored policy of JFK to the entropic, post industrial, zero growth policies first introduced under LBJ and his Great Society Hoax.

How deep is "hair'? Opps sorry.

Sorry about what? Your being a LaRouche robot?

"Rim shot"

In the Johnson Administration, the political tide was turning. Pre-eminence in space was replaced by the social programs of the "Great Society." NASA Administrator James Webb made a valiant effort to frame the necessary spending on space exploration within those terms, telling the President that the space program is "in its totality ... truly representative of a Great Society.... It stimulates millions with new knowledge while its technologies upgrade our industries and universities.... This has almost explosive potential and in reality, the space program should be the cornerstone of your Great Society, and it can be if you increase its budget."

It was, at best, a rearguard action. The London Tavistock Institute and co-thinking social control institutions had, in fact, made the takedown of the space program one of the goals of the "Great Society" hoax.

By 1966, with no post-Apollo plan approved by the President, 80,000 layoffs in the space program were already under way. Soon, the real pressure on the budget became not Johnson's Great Society, but the war in Southeast Asia, which was costing $2 billion per month before he left office.

With the 1969 ascension of Richard Nixon to the White House, the future of NASA and the nuclear rocket only worsened. The Federal budget crisis, due in large part to the spending for the war in Vietnam, and also to the international financial crisis, led to government-wide reductions. Despite the recommendation of the Space Task Group which Nixon had appointed, that Apollo be followed by the development of a shuttle to Earth orbit, an Earth-orbital space station, nuclear-powered spacecraft to take men to Mars, as well as a cargo ferry to the Moon, this was not deemed possible.

You "forgot" to provide the source of your text.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/sci_...ukes_space.html

Your entire world view if framed by that nut and his disciples. Are you capable of independent thought?

Barring independent confirmation I'll assume the claim NASA layed off 80,000 workers in the year of it's fattest budget was erroneous.

Len, you're addicted to being wrong. It's your role in life I guess. Your "creepy" "crawling" deductive Bertrand Russell method of "sniffing" the droppings just won't yield you any truth. It's worse than being subjected to a non stop GG Allin performance. It destroys the human mind.

I’m not sure what you are talking about. Where do think I was wrong?

About you copping that text from a LaRouchite? - You did.

About your entire worldview being shaped by him? - Based on your posts it is.

About NASA funding?

Sorry but your own source show that you were wrong and that funding spiked in 1966 and was higher 1964 -, when LBJ was president than any other period.

Why would you argue? The funding for NASA literally collapses after Kennedy is removed from office. It's the change in policy, Auntie Bertie, that's important. Funding that hit it's highpoint while LBJ was there is of no consequence if the truth is your goal. It collapses in 1967 radically and I believe LBJ, and not JFK was President. Why dont you ask yourself "why the change in policy"?

And if Kennedy's policy called for a manned Mars mission, then where is it? It's been 45 years and it's nowhere in sight. I think 1972 was the last time the USA sent men to the moon. We havent been back there since.

Have fun sniffing the ground for droppings.

In the Johnson Administration, the political tide was turning. Pre-eminence in space was replaced by the social programs of the "Great Society." NASA Administrator James Webb made a valiant effort to frame the necessary spending on space exploration within those terms, telling the President that the space program is "in its totality ... truly representative of a Great Society.... It stimulates millions with new knowledge while its technologies upgrade our industries and universities.... This has almost explosive potential and in reality, the space program should be the cornerstone of your Great Society, and it can be if you increase its budget."

It was, at best, a rearguard action. The London Tavistock Institute and co-thinking social control institutions had, in fact, made the takedown of the space program one of the goals of the "Great Society" hoax.

By 1966, with no post-Apollo plan approved by the President, 80,000 layoffs in the space program were already under way. Soon, the real pressure on the budget became not Johnson's Great Society, but the war in Southeast Asia, which was costing $2 billion per month before he left office.

With the 1969 ascension of Richard Nixon to the White House, the future of NASA and the nuclear rocket only worsened. The Federal budget crisis, due in large part to the spending for the war in Vietnam, and also to the international financial crisis, led to government-wide reductions. Despite the recommendation of the Space Task Group which Nixon had appointed, that Apollo be followed by the development of a shuttle to Earth orbit, an Earth-orbital space station, nuclear-powered spacecraft to take men to Mars, as well as a cargo ferry to the Moon, this was not deemed possible.

You "forgot" to provide the source of your text.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/sci_...ukes_space.html

Your entire world view if framed by that nut and his disciples. Are you capable of independent thought?

Barring independent confirmation I'll assume the claim NASA layed off 80,000 workers in the year of it's fattest budget was erroneous.

Len, you're addicted to being wrong. It's your role in life I guess. Your "creepy" "crawling" deductive Bertrand Russell method of "sniffing" the droppings just won't yield you any truth. It's worse than being subjected to a non stop GG Allin performance. It destroys the human mind.

How deep is "hair'? Opps sorry.

He [LBJ] also moved to make major budget cuts to JFK's NASA program.

NASA was actually founded during the Eisenhower Administration. I doubt Johnson push to cut it budget funding went up when he was president. Though it peaked in 1966 it was still a lot higher in 1968 than it was 1963 if the information linked below is correct. In anycase it is highly unlikely the US would have made it to the moon 1969 if funding had not be raised above 1963 levels

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_budget#A...et.2C_1958-2008

NASA funding (in constant 1996 dollars) page 18. You can see that funding for space travel "spikes" upward under John F. Kennedy, then makes an equally downward spike after the assassination, under LBJ, Nixon et.al It has remained flat ever since.

http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/~leuliett/presen...s/asen_2004.pdf

James Webb who was Director from 1961-1968 held a September 1968 press conference where he critized congressional budget cuts to NASA

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jewebb.htm

John Kennedy had used space exploration as a "science driver" program for the US economy. For every $0.01 invested the space program returned $0.12 in spinoff's to the US economy. Kennedy had gone before congress in 1962 asking for millions of dollars to develop nuclear powered rocket boosters. You did not require nuclear powered boosters to get to the moon. What JFK was planning was travel to Mars using the moon as a launch site.

This change in the outlook toward science and technology is one of the more glaring clues in the never ending game of "who killed JFK". They reversed JFK's space program and replaced it with the post industrial society complete with "sex, rock, drugs" counter culture. Had Kennedy not been murdered there is no question that the world would be a much different place today.

But there is no doubt that JFK's killers saw his commitment to science and technology a major threat.

In the Johnson Administration, the political tide was turning. Pre-eminence in space was replaced by the social programs of the "Great Society." NASA Administrator James Webb made a valiant effort to frame the necessary spending on space exploration within those terms, telling the President that the space program is "in its totality ... truly representative of a Great Society.... It stimulates millions with new knowledge while its technologies upgrade our industries and universities.... This has almost explosive potential and in reality, the space program should be the cornerstone of your Great Society, and it can be if you increase its budget."

It was, at best, a rearguard action. The London Tavistock Institute and co-thinking social control institutions had, in fact, made the takedown of the space program one of the goals of the "Great Society" hoax.

By 1966, with no post-Apollo plan approved by the President, 80,000 layoffs in the space program were already under way. Soon, the real pressure on the budget became not Johnson's Great Society, but the war in Southeast Asia, which was costing $2 billion per month before he left office.

With the 1969 ascension of Richard Nixon to the White House, the future of NASA and the nuclear rocket only worsened. The Federal budget crisis, due in large part to the spending for the war in Vietnam, and also to the international financial crisis, led to government-wide reductions. Despite the recommendation of the Space Task Group which Nixon had appointed, that Apollo be followed by the development of a shuttle to Earth orbit, an Earth-orbital space station, nuclear-powered spacecraft to take men to Mars, as well as a cargo ferry to the Moon, this was not deemed possible.

Hamilton is not fit to be an economist and he certainly doesnt understand FDR or the American System.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Scholes

And yet you continue to pimp the words of a college dropout....

Keep drinking the kook...er..koolaid Terry

I try to stay away from drinking too much koolaid. They say it can cause "hair loss".

He [LBJ] also moved to make major budget cuts to JFK's NASA program.

NASA was actually founded during the Eisenhower Administration. I doubt Johnson push to cut it budget funding went up when he was president. Though it peaked in 1966 it was still a lot higher in 1968 than it was 1963 if the information linked below is correct. In anycase it is highly unlikely the US would have made it to the moon 1969 if funding had not be raised above 1963 levels

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_budget#A...et.2C_1958-2008

NASA funding (in constant 1996 dollars) page 18. You can see that funding for space travel "spikes" upward under John F. Kennedy, then makes an equally downward spike after the assassination, under LBJ, Nixon et.al It has remained flat ever since.

http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/~leuliett/presen...s/asen_2004.pdf

James Webb who was Director from 1961-1968 held a September 1968 press conference where he critized congressional budget cuts to NASA

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jewebb.htm

John Kennedy had used space exploration as a "science driver" program for the US economy. For every $0.01 invested the space program returned $0.12 in spinoff's to the US economy. Kennedy had gone before congress in 1962 asking for millions of dollars to develop nuclear powered rocket boosters. You did not require nuclear powered boosters to get to the moon. What JFK was planning was travel to Mars using the moon as a launch site.

This change in the outlook toward science and technology is one of the more glaring clues in the never ending game of "who killed JFK". They reversed JFK's space program and replaced it with the post industrial society complete with "sex, rock, drugs" counter culture. Had Kennedy not been murdered there is no question that the world would be a much different place today.

But there is no doubt that JFK's killers saw his commitment to science and technology a major threat.

Terms such as China Syndrome and chicken little are all products of your fertile imagination as I certainly didn't say them.

Nor did I ever indicate you had, note the lack of quotation marks. Obviously you wouldn't use the term "chicken little" to refer to your own predictions. But you have repeatedly predicted a coming financial disaster.

You were wise to back down.

I didn't, my position never was what you falsely claimed it to be.

But you have repeatedly predicted a coming financial disaster

And Mark has been 100% correct. Where have you been? Some people occasionally stick their foot in their mouth but you've managed to shove in your mouth everything but the kitchen sink. You don't have a clear idea of what is going on. Your argument is "I dont believe such a thing possible so therefore it cant happen. Well take another look around because it has happened.

You should stay out of this debate because you're absolutely ignorant of the facts. You didnt even know what a derivative was until you started mis counting the zero's.

Since no such catastrophe has yet struck you have no way of knowing whether he was correct. Can you point to any economists not tied to Larouche who think a disaster on that scale is coming?

Over the last century the US has experienced a serious economic crisis on average of every dozen years or so which was more or less the rate since the founding of the Republic. So if one preaches doom long enough eventually their “prophesy” will come true. But your messiah has been predicting that collapse on an unprecedented scale was imminent since 1994 (according to you). Mark has been making similar predictions (though for less time). But 14 years later and counting the US has yet to go though a crisis on the scale it had a few earlier (the 1990-2 Recession)

Funny you indicate I’ve made repeated errors but you keep harping on the same one. Yes as I’ve admitted I was wrong about the total amount of outstanding derivatives. I didn’t miscount zeros you supplied a chart sans any indication that it was in $,000.

As for financial literacy I doubt you know anything beyond what your guru tells you. You demonstrated your ignorance when you wrote

“I think the GAO reports the off balance sheet debt of the banks, by quarter.”

In response to my comment that one of your sources indicated total notional value of derivatives was “$25.4 trillion”. The implication of your comment was that the annual value would be around 100 Trillion. I’m sorry but things don’t work that way. If the national debt of the US reached $ 9.7 Trillion in a particular quarter that doesn’t the amount for 1 year is around 40 trillion. Total debt is a cumulative value.

I demonstrated my ignorance? How might that be, by identifying the largest financial blow out in all history? Or is it because I also know the solution? You just keep counting things, "homes, cars, money" and that will prove your intelligence. Keep sniffing for those "clues".

Bertrand Russell, why do you think they need a $1 trillion bailout? And I believe the phrase "financial collapse" has been used repeatedly by the media when quoting these expert economists.

Take care Bertie.

The financial meltdown has also melted McCain's already slim chances. Watching McCain or Palin talking credibly about economic issues--complex and controversial right now--could be quite funny, imo.

http://www.thestar.com/News/USElection/article/502841

It's going to be a massive landslide. The only rider being the disastrous possibilty that a pre-emptive strike on Iran or a sudden war with another country or a terrorist attack on the US changes the game again.

The article quotes Obama as supporting the current administrations proposal for a multi trillion dollar bailout of the financial sharks. That doesnt show a great deal of leadership.

They have had to cede ground to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve chair Ben Bernanke, who prepared the largest taxpayer bailout in American history – a package that could be worth as much as $1 trillion – during a week in which the venerable Wall Street firm Lehman Brothers collapsed, Merrill Lynch was unloaded in a fire sale and American International Group was bailed out by Washington for $85 billion.

At week's end, stock markets rebounded, but uncertainty abounded.

Obama endorsed the administration's plan yesterday.

"This is a worldwide issue, and while the United States can and will lead in stabilizing the credit markets, we should ask other nations, who share in this crisis, to be part of the solution as well,'' Obama said in Miami.

He spoke following a meeting with his economic brain trust, many of the same advisers who helped Bill Clinton preside over eight years of prosperity in the 1990s.

They included billionaire investor Warren Buffett; former Federal Reserve chair Paul Volcker; former treasury secretaries Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers and Paul O'Neill; and Laura Tyson, former head of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton.

I see your point Terry, but he's not going to pick a fight with the Fed or the Treasury at this pivotal moment, imo. It just proves he's got brains.

I've got faith in Obama. I like him. Not too much bullxxxx. I think he'll try to do the right thing after he's sworn in. Although I'm a little worried about the self confessed Zionist standing behind him.

But that's the real issue. The Federal Reserve System is bankrupt. I'd like to see Obama push the idea of bankruptcy reorganization modeled on the precendent set by FDR. This bailout wont work because there is no wealth there; there's no value there.

This is purely financial speculation. This is gambling, it's a gambling house. Where's your production? Where's your production of wealth? Where do you have people employed in making things? What happened to the auto industry? What happened to all kinds of other industry? What's happening to agriculture? What kinds of employment are there? It's make-work. It's exactly the way in which we came to the point of the collapse of the House of Bardi; exactly this method.

The financial meltdown has also melted McCain's already slim chances. Watching McCain or Palin talking credibly about economic issues--complex and controversial right now--could be quite funny, imo.

http://www.thestar.com/News/USElection/article/502841

It's going to be a massive landslide. The only rider being the disastrous possibilty that a pre-emptive strike on Iran or a sudden war with another country or a terrorist attack on the US changes the game again.

The article quotes Obama as supporting the current administrations proposal for a multi trillion dollar bailout of the financial sharks. That doesnt show a great deal of leadership.

They have had to cede ground to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve chair Ben Bernanke, who prepared the largest taxpayer bailout in American history – a package that could be worth as much as $1 trillion – during a week in which the venerable Wall Street firm Lehman Brothers collapsed, Merrill Lynch was unloaded in a fire sale and American International Group was bailed out by Washington for $85 billion.

At week's end, stock markets rebounded, but uncertainty abounded.

Obama endorsed the administration's plan yesterday.

"This is a worldwide issue, and while the United States can and will lead in stabilizing the credit markets, we should ask other nations, who share in this crisis, to be part of the solution as well,'' Obama said in Miami.

He spoke following a meeting with his economic brain trust, many of the same advisers who helped Bill Clinton preside over eight years of prosperity in the 1990s.

They included billionaire investor Warren Buffett; former Federal Reserve chair Paul Volcker; former treasury secretaries Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers and Paul O'Neill; and Laura Tyson, former head of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton.

http://www.freeople.com/blog/financial-cri...nday-ahead/1483

In Australia, I've read that some churches and charities have exposure to Lehmans' neatly bundled 'assets'. St. Vincent de Paul in particular. A bit surprising for them to have been such eager capitalists, imo.

Goldman Sachs, the Modern Knights Templars

Sept. 20--Goldman Sachs investment bank is "the modern equivalent

of the Knights Templars; they are all powerful in every country.

And they will be just as hard to extirpate," a London financial

analyst said in a discussion yesterday. The Knights Templars were

a military order founded during the 11th century. They were

notorious, during their existence, for their combination of

military success in the Crusades and the power they gained from

their vast financier-banking operations throughout Europe and

Southwest Asia.

The London analyst said that while it is certainly true that

investment banks are now utterly useless, and are being taken

down, Goldman Sachs is "not going to go quietly." It could well

be something like, "we go, and we take everything with us," the

analyst said.